Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, would the member at the very least recognize that many of the individuals or groups that would be investing in the infrastructure bank would be Canadians throughout the country? They would be doing that through, for example, pension funds.

I wonder if my colleague across the way believes that having some of those funds invested in Canada is healthy for our Canadian economy, given that today we see many of those funds leaving the country because we do not have an investment bank such as the one we are proposing. Those funds are financing infrastructure programs outside of Canada. Would it not be good to provide the option to have them here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, that is the Liberals' only line of defence and they have no figures to back their claims.

I have figures. The investment bank's eligibility threshold is $100 million. In my riding, the municipality of Sainte-Barbe needs a new fire station. How are small municipalities like that one going to be able to ask this investment bank to invest in their community to help fund their project?

Some small municipalities want to work on water and sewer projects. That is the case in Elgin, for example. How are those municipalities going to be able to submit any projects? It is impossible. The small communities will never get any help from this investment bank.

What is more, there are going to be tolls and user fees. These extra fees will be monumental. According to the auditors general from British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario, the private financing costs for infrastructure are twice as much. We have to look at the details. This type of project needs to be studied independently. It should not be buried in an omnibus bill.

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 16, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, as a former journalist, it is with sincere emotion that I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill S-231, which pertains to the protection of journalistic sources.

It is a wonderful story. It gets off to a bad start, but we hope that it will end well. It gets off to a bad start because, just a few months ago, we learned that terrible situations were happening in Quebec, where the police were wiretapping journalists in order to flush out their sources. That is shameful in a democracy.

Senator Claude Carignan from the upper chamber picked up on that and worked quickly, yet in an appropriate and effective manner, to draft Bill S-231, which seeks to protect journalistic sources. This bill was unanimously passed by Canada's upper house. It is therefore a great honour and privilege for me to sponsor this bill, because it is a key component of Canada's democracy that we are going to talk about.

Bill S-231 includes four key points that make it a good bill. First of all, it protects the source and not the journalist. Second, it clearly defines who is considered a journalist, to prevent people from suddenly claiming to be a journalist and committing irrelevant acts.

In addition, moving forward, the only people who can authorize police officers to investigate journalists will be superior court justices and not justices of the peace. Lastly, the bill changes the burden of proof. Police officers will have to prove that their last possible recourse for properly conducting their investigation is to get permission from a judge to investigate a journalist.

The most important distinction in this bill is that it protects the source and not the journalist. Simply put, it is similar to the first laws passed in this place regarding whistleblowers, those who discover wrongdoings and call journalists to tell them when something fishy is going on.

When I was a journalist, it was crucial for me to be able to speak directly to people who had information and wanted to get it out to others. Anyone who has ever been a journalist knows how important this is. However, sources need to feel that they are protected. If journalists are wiretapped and this allows the police to uncover their sources and then track them, the journalists' sources dry up. That is the worst thing that can happen. Therefore, the bill seeks to protect the source and not the journalist. That is an important distinction.

Second, the bill sets out a clear definition of a journalist. Many people can easily write a blog or anything else in their basement in the evening and call themselves journalists. However, the bill provides a clear and precise definition of a journalist.

In that regard, I would like to point out the remarkable contribution, that has not gone unnoticed, of Senator André Pratte, a career journalist and a former manager, editor-in-chief, and distinguished columnist at La Presse. It is a major benefit for democracy to have him in the upper chamber.

Senator Pratte moved an amendment. Senator Carignan, with his good will and desire to move things along, agreed, and that is how we came to have a clear definition of a journalist in the bill. Not just anyone is a journalist. Ultimately, the judge decides whether or not the target of a police investigation is a journalist.

Third, going forward, only Superior Court judges will be able to authorize police investigations.

Right now in Quebec, justices of the peace are the ones with the power to authorize investigations. I know it is the same thing in other Canadian jurisdictions, but I will limit my comments to my own personal experience. In the case of the Montreal police service, 98% of such requests were granted. That number was a tad high. Perhaps an investigation, or at the very least further analysis, was required.

That is why, with his usual efficiency and great skill, Senator Carignan suggested that we leave those decisions to Superior Court judges rather than justices of the peace. Without wanting to disparage justices of the peace, such sensitive situations require the attention of an experienced jurist.

Indeed, Superior Court judges have the necessary training to deal with just such circumstances.

The last point is rather tricky. It deals with reversing the burden of proof. In other words, the police officers seeking to investigate a journalist or identify a source are the ones who will have to make an application to a judge and offer supporting arguments; only those that succeed in convincing the judge of the merits of their arguments will see their applications granted. This is a major change to operational procedure. Even with the burden of proof reversed, no one will be able to prevent the police from investigating if they believe they have very good reasons to do so. Nevertheless, they will first have to undertake a rigorous analysis and make a solid argument. Then, they will have to convince a Superior Court judge.

This bill is well put together and well-intentioned. If by chance it passes, journalists will be able to do their work with even more confidence. Thanks to this bill, sources will not dry up or be scared off. It just so happens that I talked to Patrick Lagacé when he was being wiretapped. I got a kick out of saying, “Hi, police officer”. When we found out just a few months ago that he was being wiretapped, that struck us all as unacceptable. We have to fix it.

Senator Carignan's bill fixes the problem. It has gone through a Department of Justice analysis, where it was tweaked. It has also been vetted by police services to make sure they can continue to do their work. We have no desire to handicap them in the work they do. We want to give them even more tools to help them do an even better job. That is what Senator Carignan's bill does. This bill is well written and will get the job done.

Unfortunately, Canada has been at the back of the pack because many countries like ours have laws that protect journalistic sources. That includes Australia, Germany, France, and Great Britain, which have laws about this. Let us hope that a majority of parliamentarians will support this bill so we can go forward.

Editors, executives, and journalists' associations alike enthusiastically applauded Senator Carignan's bill in both English and French. That hardly ever happens. I would like to read some of their comments. “Sources are scared”, said Éric Trottier, deputy editor of La Presse. “They want us to find safer ways for them to communicate with our journalists”. This bill will fix that.

Other opinions came from Michael Cooke, editor-in-chief of the Toronto Star, as well as editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail David Walmsley, who said:

At a Senate committee, Mr. Walmsley pointed out that the Globe spent nearly $1 million in legal fees in 2009 and 2010 to protect the identity of a source whose revelations concluded in good and great articles.

As everyone knows, the entire press praised Senator Carignan's bill, which was passed unanimously by the Senate. Professionals were even called in to amend the bill and make it as relevant as possible. The Department of Justice carefully vetted it and acknowledged it was good piece of legislation.

Among other things, the bill clearly defines the journalistic profession, protects journalistic sources, and ensures that police officers will still be able to do their job. The burden of proof will be reversed, which will only strengthen their authority when they conduct an investigation, especially since Superior Court judges will be the ones authorizing them, when required.

This is an excellent bill. Today is a good day for democracy. It is a good day for freedom of the press. I hope that my colleagues will all agree on this bill.

Steven MacKinnonLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I share my colleague's concerns regarding the inappropriate surveillance our media have long been debating. Fortunately, we have had the freedom to debate it. In many countries, people do not have that freedom. I join my colleague and share his concerns regarding the protection of sources and the best way to ensure that journalists can do their jobs and report the facts fully and freely.

The journalism profession is in transition. This issue is certainly worth debating. I am pleased that we can debate it here in this place.

That said, I have a question that my colleague might not like. It is a bit of a paradigm shift for the Conservative Party. The member was not here, so he can be forgiven, but for 10 years, cabinet meetings were held in secret, only a small number of journalists were allowed to ask questions, and scientists were forbidden from communicating with journalists.

Does the member think that this bill is somehow a way to win back the journalistic profession?

Mr. Speaker, though I find it thoroughly disappointing, I cannot say that I am surprised by just how low the Liberal party can go on this otherwise fine day for democracy and freedom of the press.

Need I remind the House that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent used to be a reporter, that the member for Foothills used to be a reporter, that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is a magazine editor, of which there are many among us, and that the member for Thornhill is a distinguished journalist who, among other things, witnessed the election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968? I am sorry, but this is too much; I am so utterly disappointed by this clumsy, amateurish, and oh so Liberal display of partisanship.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way.

One of the things I have witnessed over the years is the significant way in which media have actually evolved. That is one of the things I believe we also need to take into consideration. I can recall when I was first elected—and like the member opposite, I too have served in a provincial legislatures—there was a great deal more media attention, at that point, at the local legislature levels. At least, that is what I found.

I wonder if my colleague across the way has anything he would like to add, in terms of the modernization or the changes we have witnessed. Are there some other things that maybe we should be taking into consideration when we talk about legislation such as the member opposite is proposing today?

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I do appreciate it. The point is that, for sure, this is a very evolving situation. When I was a journalist just eight years ago, one of my last reports was about Facebook. Believe it or not, Facebook was not permitted in the national assembly. It was considered social media, just for the fun of it. It is crazy to see how important it is. Can members believe that politicians did not have the right to have their Facebook page in the national assembly in 2008? That was the reality of the time. It is moving so fast.

Yes, for sure, journalists shall address new issues day after day.

Nothing is perfect, for sure, but I think in that case, we cover so many areas to protect journalists' sources that today, it is correct. Maybe in two years from now, we will have to refresh this piece of legislation; we will welcome that kind of work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity today to speak to Bill S-231, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code (protection of journalistic sources).

Before I begin my speech, and in light of the little exchange we just heard, I still feel compelled to congratulate the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. On the whole, I believe he and I agree on the issue of the protection of journalistic sources. Regarding the past 10 years, I am sure we will have other opportunities to discuss the issue, as we do when other subjects come up, but I still tend to agree with the member for Gatineau.

That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Claude Carignan, who did truly phenomenal work, for his diligence in this file and for all the work he did on Bill S-231. I think that is worth mentioning.

The overall objective of the bill is laudable, which is to ensure that the protection of journalistic sources is given due consideration whenever they are at issue in Canadian courts. As we all know, this bill was tabled in response to recent events involving the use of investigative tools targeting journalists; in particular, revelations that police in Quebec had obtained warrants to monitor the cellphones of several journalists.

Let me be perfectly clear. Freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value, critical to Canadians and to Canadian democracy. I think we can all agree on that. That is why it is enshrined in our Constitution under our freedom of expression rights in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our government is firmly committed to defending it assiduously.

Last week, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged the importance of protecting journalistic sources to Canada's democracy, saying:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now in its 35th year, established the freedom of the press as a fundamental freedom. Journalists start conversations, shine light on stories that would otherwise not be told, and give Canadians the facts they need to engage in public debate and shape events around them. A free and open press is crucial to an informed and engaged citizenry, which is at the heart of a healthy democracy.

We can find many examples of the importance of freedom of the press in Canadian society. Just last week, the 68th National Newspaper Awards honoured the best and brightest in the field in Canada.

The awards honoured, for example, reportage on the deadly opioid crisis across Canada, the tragedy of soldiers and veterans who died by suicide after serving in Afghanistan, an exposé of unsavoury practices fuelling the Lower Mainland real estate boom in B.C., the 50 years of mercury leaching in northwestern Ontario, the miscarriage of justice that resulted in a mentally ill Canadian ending up in one of America's most notorious prisons, and the investigation into the death of a four-year-old first nations foster child.

These fine examples of journalism provided citizens the information they needed to fully participate in democracy.

There is no doubt that some of them likely used confidential sources.

On that note, Bill S-231 proposes changes to the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code, by creating special regimes to protect confidential journalistic sources. The Canada Evidence Act proposals would create a unique regime applicable any time the media wish to protect a journalistic source. This new regime attempts to codify the common law developed and interpreted through several Supreme Court of Canada cases. The bill effectively elevates journalistic source protection to a class privilege. It would also place the onus on the person who seeks disclosure of the information instead of the person seeking to protect the information, which is currently the case.

The Criminal Code proposals address the way in which investigative tools, such as search warrants and production orders can be obtained or executed when they involve a journalist.

Although the purpose of these proposals is to protect journalistic sources, the procedure would apply every time a journalist is the subject of an investigative tool. The bill also proposes a triage procedure that requires the gathered evidence to be sealed and a court review before the information can be disclosed to police.

The bill proposes that only a superior court judge shall authorize the use of an investigative tool on a journalist.

Many of these proposals seem like excellent improvements to the protection of journalistic sources, and our government is currently studying them closely. In doing so, there are several issues that I think we must closely consider.

We must look at how it seeks to codify the robust common law protections in this area. We should also consider that the regime would apply equally even in cases where the journalists themselves are suspected of criminal activity.

Additionally, I have some questions about the bill's provisions that would provide that the new procedures override all other laws in Canada, including those that relate to privacy and national security. We should ask whether override clauses are an appropriate tool here, as they necessarily create conflicts between statutes and can have unintended consequences as a result.

As some of my colleagues already know, the protection of journalistic sources afforded by common law and the Constitution are rigorous. For that reason, we should try to ensure that this bill follows common law as much as possible in order to avoid unintended consequences.

We must ensure that we do not unintentionally undermine these protections and that changes to the law adequately strengthen the protection of journalistic sources.

As for the protection of journalistic sources in courtrooms, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Globe and Mail v. Canada and R. v. National Post, applied the criteria test established by Wigmore to determine whether a specific journalistic source should be protected.

The Wigmore test is applied on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a source of confidential information should be protected.

Under the Wigmore test, the courts will protect the confidential source when the following conditions are met, as I am sure most members know.

First, the communications must have originated in a confidence that they will not be disclosed; second, the element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relationship between the parties; third, the relationship must be one that, in the opinion of the community, ought to be carefully and continuously fostered; and fourth, the injury that would be caused to the relationship by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit it would provide for the correct disposal of the litigation.

This differs from a traditional class privilege such as solicitor-client privilege, which is a presumed privilege recognized by the courts. In a class privilege, once individuals have established that they are members of the class, the privilege automatically protects against disclosure of certain information, and exceptions are extremely narrow and limited.

The intent of Bill S-231 is to codify the rules that apply to journalists and their confidential sources. However, as members, and especially as members of the government, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that Bill S-231 does so appropriately. In other words, we must ensure that these new rules, once codified, will apply in pertinent cases.

I would now like to go back to the amendments proposed by Bill S-231, which relate to how investigative tools are issued and executed when they relate to journalists.

This aspect of the bill is most relevant to the circumstances emanating from Quebec that gave rise to the introduction of Bill S-231. Like journalistic source privilege in the courtroom context, the issue of investigative tools targeting journalists has also been reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Lessard and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick, the court set out a number of factors to be considered any time an investigative tool is sought against a journalist, and these include whether or not the evidence can be obtained through any other means, whether or not the information was already public and whether the execution of the tool can be tailored so as to minimize its impact on the media.

However, the court also stated that factors that may be vital in assessing the reasonableness of one search may be irrelevant in another.

We must bear in mind these words of wisdom while we debate and study this bill, and we must also ask ourselves whether the courts have the flexibility to adequately respond to these pressing issues.

To conclude, I believe it is important that we look to ensure that journalists and their sources are provided appropriate protection, but we must ensure that any reforms enacted in this area do so in a way that builds on the common law and does not adversely undermine other important societal interests.

To close on a more pragmatic note, in the end, with regard to the protection of sources, the objective of the bill is quite commendable. However, the government continues to study the different amendments and the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberals' obsession with living in the past, we need to remember that, last week, on World Press Freedom Day, Reporters Without Borders reminded us that Canada dropped 14 points in the World Press Freedom Index. I would like to remind members that this happened in the past two years. Those who do the math will figure out that we are coming up on this government's two year anniversary. Before resorting to petty partisanship, the government needs to realize that the status quo is unacceptable for democracy and journalism.

It goes without saying that Bill S-231 is a response to high profile cases, in particular, the surveillance of journalist Patrick Lagacé by the Montreal police. Contrary to what we heard in the government member's speech, the federal government is not safe, here in Ottawa, from these same traps and actions that threaten the freedom of the press and, consequently, our democracy.

Take for example, Vice reporter Ben Makuch who is currently in court trying to protect a source within the RCMP. He could go to prison for it.

He is facing prison because the RCMP is tyring to obtain information that will not help it at all in its investigation. On the contrary, all the information the RCMP needs is already in the public domain, in articles published by the journalist in question. I think this is a very striking example.

It does not stop there. The response provided by the RCMP and CSIS over the past weeks, months, and even years on the various incidents that have taken place are rather unconvincing. Consider the example of Joël-Denis Bellavance of La Presse, who was followed and spied on by the RCMP. I reiterate that the status quo is no longer working, and that is why we are pleased to support this bill. Indeed, we must move this forward.

Although the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is sponsoring this bill in the House of Commons, I am sure he would agree that it is nice to have a private member's bill, but it is high time that this government introduced something even more robust. Much bigger reforms are needed. I am not criticizing what this bill does; on the contrary, it is a first step in the right direction. However, I think a lot of work remains to be done to bring our legislation in line with the 21st century.

As the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent pointed out, social networks and ubiquitous cell phones have changed how journalists and police officers operate, and are still changing things almost every day. We have a lot of catching up to do if we want a system that works the way we want it to.

People have explained what the bill will do, but I just want to go over that again. In a situation like what happened with the VICE reporter, that means reverse onus for protecting sources. This is very important because it does provide a way to ensure public safety if the police can prove, say, that this is the only way it can get information that would save lives. We know that option exists.

I think it is appropriate for the bill to place the onus on the police, not on journalists, who would have to prove that their sources need to be protected. I think this is essential. In addition, warrants are issued by Superior Court judges, not justices of the peace. That is a very important element that strengthens and tightens up the system a lot to make sure that journalistic sources are properly protected.

I am going to read some quotes that I found that illustrate my point. I am not sure if it is against the rules to comment on one's own absence in the House. Unfortunately, I arrived a bit late because I had other commitments. I apologize if I am repeating what my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said.

I am going to read a few comments, which are quite interesting to me and illustrate the culture that is unfortunately starting to grip journalists and their desire to do their job. Being afraid to do one's job obviously has an adverse effect on the result and, accordingly, democracy.

I will start with a quote by Tom Henheffer from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. Speaking about the case of the Vice journalist, he said:

He said, “Every civil society organization with ties to free expression in the country are supporting him and condemning the fact that the government is violating press freedom in such an aggressive way. We feel this is a serious blight on Canada's international reputation, and a major mistake on behalf of the RCMP.”

I have another interesting quote, this one from Denis Lessard, parliamentary bureau chief for La Presse in Quebec City. He may have since changed positions. I do not always follow what is happening in Quebec City because I have enough on my plate. He was talking about the police surveillance scandal in Montreal and the SQ. He said:

I have covered politics for almost 40 years, [I am not going to state my age, but let us just say that we are talking about a seasoned professional] and have often reported on politically sensitive topics. You tell yourself that it is always possible that you are being spied on by police, but you are also convinced that they would never dare go that far. Well, it seems we were wrong.

This illustrates the point I was making to show that a journalist starts to change his attitude toward police work even after 40 years of experience with sensitive topics. Let us just say that it has a dampening effect on the work that is done.

I have another quote, this one from Marie-Maude Denis from Radio-Canada:

I have always been extremely careful with regard to my confidential sources, but of course when ‘fighting’ against the police you are always outgunned, as they have access to this kind of investigative tool. The future will tell us or maybe we will never know everything they have discovered about me.

Once again, this perfectly illustrates the change in culture. Journalists would indeed like to know, but they remain in the dark. They wonder what information police departments or other national security agencies, such as CSIS, have on them. That is very worrisome.

I will deviate a little from the matter before us, specifically the bill. I just want to make a general comment. Earlier, I said that there is much work to be done. For the NDP, it goes without saying that the reforms are a good example of that. Our position is that Bill C-51 should be rescinded. We heard groups of journalists express concerns about certain provisions on criminalization and terrorist propaganda. These are very important concerns for the journalists covering these stories or those that infiltrate terrorist cells in order to report facts of public interest. Mainly, we are talking about journalists working for smaller media outlets that have neither the financial nor the legal resources that larger organizations have to give their employees greater and more robust legal protection during court proceedings. That is a very important consideration to bear in mind.

I want to end with a problem that we have with the bill and that we hope to fix in committee. We do not agree with the amendment adopted by the Senate regarding the definition of a journalist. After talking to some journalist groups working in the field and on this issue, we believe that the definition is too narrow and could cause problems for bloggers or journalists who work in non-traditional media.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent acknowledged it once again in his remarks. Social media and the Internet, among other things, are changing the field of journalism significantly. We therefore believe that judges should be given the discretion to decide whether someone is a journalist and works in the field of journalism. That would give judges enough discretion to ensure the integrity of what the bill is proposing, while also making sure that journalists working in new media or non-traditional media are not unfairly punished.

That is what we are going to propose in committee. That being said, this bill is an excellent step in the right direction. As the public safety critic, I am very pleased to recommend that my colleagues support the bill, just as I intend to do.

Of course, I would like to thank Senator Carignan and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for their efforts. The bill could not have been introduced at a better time, as May 3 was World Press Freedom Day. This is an issue that we should all be concerned about.

As politicians, we have all had our run-ins with journalists, but I believe that our democracy will always be better served by freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and the NDP will join all those who are working toward those goals.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-231 and speak in support of my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Like the member, I was a journalist prior to this career. I was a print journalist for close to 25 years. In fact, I think I still have some ink in my veins. Once people have that, they never lose it.

There are two things I want to focus on as part of the discussion tonight. I know it has been touched on a bit before, but there are two elements of the bill that are vitally important as we move forward. I like to think that my career as a journalist really helped get me where I am right now, which is representing my constituents of Foothills here in the House of Commons. I talked to a lot to the community members. I knew the issues. I knew who the councillors were, and those types of things, but the fundamental reason why the residents of Foothills elected me in 2014, and again in 2015, was that over the years as a journalist I had earned their respect. I had earned their trust, and I believe I earned their faith. Those are so fundamentally important for a journalist, and they transfer well into being an elected official as well.

That is something we are losing in the journalism industry, that respect factor and trust. Part of that is because in this day and age of social media, alternate facts, fake news, and whatever we want to call these things that are happening right now, people are having a difficult time trusting the media that is out there now.

One of the aspects of the bill that is a great step forward is to define journalism and who a journalist is. We are seeing that the focus of journalism has certainly changed over the 20-plus years I was in the industry. Now it is who can get the information out there first, not necessarily who gets it right. That is really the core issue when it comes to Canadians losing faith in journalism.

That is why we have to take those steps to define what journalism is and who a journalist is. That can be discussed further at committee. Certainly, there are many more media to get that information out there, but Canadians have to have faith in who the journalist is and whether they trust the facts he or she is bringing forward.

The other aspect I wanted to touch on especially was the fact about protecting our sources. Carl Bernstein said:

The lowest form of popular culture—lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives—has overrun real journalism.

That touches on what I was saying about the lack of trust we have in journalism today. That is something the bill will help to address a great deal.

On protecting sources, in my years as a journalist, one of the big issues I dealt with was a magnesium plant that is in my constituency. It was in the circulation area of our newspaper. I was making phone calls from High River to New Orleans, to Dallas, Texas, and to Los Angeles, California. A lot of this had to do with a company many of us remember from the movie Erin Brockovich, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. I was able to track down a lot of corruption that had happened in the building and construction of that operation, which never really became operational. It became a huge white elephant for the Province of Alberta.

I would never have been able to track those things down if my sources did not have faith in me: they knew they would be kept secret. That is such a fundamental part of journalism and the media, but also a fundamental part of our democracy. As journalists, we have to ensure that our sources know they have the faith, trust, and security to come forward with information, whether it is about public spending, about government, about their community, or about misappropriation and misdeeds with businesses and corporations. We have to ensure that sources have that protection.

Many of us in the journalism industry, or even as members of Parliament, were shocked to learn that the Montreal city police and the Quebec provincial police were tapping the phones of journalists to try to track not only their sources but also their movements. Those of us in Canada just did not think something like this would ever happen. However, it has happened, and we have to take steps to ensure it does not happen again.

Take a look at our history. I was inspired to become a journalist because of some of the amazing stories that happened over the years. Take a look at Woodward and Bernstein in Watergate. Look at the Spotlight team at The Boston Globe. It shed a light on the Catholic church in Boston. What about the Liberal ad scam? Some of these things may never have been brought to light if we did not have sources who felt safe coming forward.

These were transformational stories that will not only will be remembered for generations, but also forced governments to change how we did things to ensure these things did not happen again. We want to protect our constituents.

Protecting sources is fundamentally important. The journalists and the sources out there are protecting us, shining a light on things that need to be exposed, and we need to ensure they have the opportunity to do that.

We have to give journalists the tools they need to do their job properly. That is another fundamental piece of the bill.

Journalists have a very difficult job, but sources and journalists have to understand they are protected, that they can do their job unmolested in the quest for the truth. We have to support them in that quest. This quest that journalists are on takes them to where history is made. I want them to take that journey, to find that quest for the truth unmolested, knowing they are safe and that we as legislators are here to back them up as well.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and provide some comments on what is a very important bill. I look forward to hearing more members express their thoughts on it.

I have had many experiences over the years with journalists. I think it is safe to say that when we think of Canada as the great nation that it is, there are some very important components to the foundation of who we are. We can talk about our elections and democracy. We can talk about how important it is that there is that interplay between our Parliament and our media, this sense of accountability and transparency, and how that is best had through interactions between politicians and the media, but it goes far beyond the issue of politics.

We only need to ask Canadians what is important to them today. One of the things I often make reference to inside this chamber is that in the early 1980s, Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That has become a part of our Canadian values. We genuinely appreciate the role the media play in our society. I believe our Charter of Rights ensures that we continue to have a free media that feels comfortable reporting on the facts of matters. There are certain tools that the people in the media require in order to do the job that they do.

I want to use as examples some of the things that I have had to go through. They have not always been good reports that I have had with the media, but good or bad, I have always accepted the importance to recognize the independence of the media and what we can do to support that independence. That is why I was glad when we had the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the minister responsible. In that mandate letter to the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister tasked her with ensuring that the rights of Canadians are protected and that the guarantees that are set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.

The minister herself has recognized that freedom of the press is a fundamental Canadian value stated in the charter. Moreover, on May 3 during question period, our Prime Minister made it very clear that protection of journalistic sources is something our government strongly believes in. Let there be no doubt that this government recognizes and respects the independence of our media.

When I posed the question, I talked about how the media have really changed. Before, the industry tended to be a bit more focused on TV, newspapers, and radio. Those would have been the big three, if I can put it that way. Today, I am not convinced that those are the big three anymore. Because of social media and the Internet, different pressures are being applied to other media outlets. Today, quite honestly, there are some media networks where, if people get that 10-second clip, it will do them well. It can reach many thousands and hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Today, I recognize to what degree social media is playing a much larger role. Facebook is a great example of that. It is truly amazing. I believe that Canadians, on a per capita basis in the world, are more connected to that social network than the people of any other country in the world.

We are seeing a great deal more advertising on Facebook. If every member in the House is not on Facebook, all of us ought to be in order to communicate our messages, not only to constituents but also to the broader community. YouTube has been utilized in this way. I am not the most computer literate individual, but I recognize that there have been significant changes.

One change I recognized relatively early in the game was blogging. It is important that we factor in many aspects of journalism. It does not take much for individuals to say they are journalists and to start writing stories or blogging on the Internet. There are very real and tangible credentials. There is obviously a great difference between, let us say, CKY or the Winnipeg Free Press and John Doe's blog on the Internet. There is a significant difference. We need to recognize that, at least in good part. That is not to take anything away from John Doe. John Doe could have a super fantastic blog and could have literally hundreds or thousands of dedicated followers. It is a way we often reach out to our communities.

We often underestimate some of those community efforts. There are ethnic and community media outlets in Winnipeg. Pilipino Express, Ang Peryodiko, Filipino Journal, and Artista are four ethnic community newspapers that have done so well, even with the competition from mainstream media. When I was the immigration critic, I visited Toronto. I met with some Indo-Canadian newspapers and media outlets. I was amazed at how many there are in print and radio, in particular.

We need to look at the bigger media picture and ensure that media remains a very important and protected industry. With respect to this bill, it is the individuals who take the time to become investigative journalists, who will do the background work that is quite often required to uncover things, some of which may be uncomfortable. My colleagues across the way cited a couple of examples. I too could cite a couple of examples, such as the Senategate issue that occurred just a couple of years ago.

No doubt many examples could be used, whether it is at the national level or provincial level or in other jurisdictions, where there have been outstanding reports and investigative journalism. With the efforts of journalists, we have a better, more educated society. Whether it is government, non-profits, or even private industry, there is a higher sense of accountability because of the independence of journalism. The legislation from the Senate which my friend has sponsored is something on which we need to have a healthy discussion in the chamber, and I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

From my perspective, when we think of that journalist, we have to go beyond stating the obvious, the main stream media. We need to factor in the Internet, the different community newspapers, and radio stations. I felt that was a good thing to contribute to the debate and I look forward to further comments by others.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fascinating topic. Like many of my colleagues here, I spent a long time as a journalist, but in somewhat more in the tech field than most. I spent nine years as an editor and freelance journalist with an online technology publication, so I was way ahead of the curve. I started writing in 2000, entirely online. We had no print publication. By the end of 2008, we were up to about two million monthly readers on the website. It was called linux.com at the time. The company was sold, without the staff, and that is how I ended up leaving journalism, which is another whole story.

The subject in front of us is protecting sources. I cannot say how important that is to journalism, no matter what an individual is covering, no matter where he or she is. It is a very important topic to discuss. I have not had a chance to read the bill closely, but I look forward to doing that when I have the chance.

Writers have to go out and network. It is really important to know the sources, the companies, and the people who working in the trenches. When they need information, they feel comfortable talking to us and telling us what they know. They use that information to write stories without revealing who it is. This is a really important topic. I thank both the senator and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for bringing this before us.

When I was writing, one of my favourite things to do was to write satire pieces. Around 2003, the state of California, where my company was based but I was not and had not been there at the time, was going through an entertaining state election. It had removed the governor and some 100-plus candidates were running for governor, including Arnold Schwarzenegger who went on to become the governor of the state of California. I am sure many remember that particular moment in time.

I wrote a satire piece declaring that Linus Torvalds, who was the creator of Linux, was getting into the race. The article was fairly popular in the technical community. I invented a number of quotes for him in this satire piece. What amazed me was a couple of other publications took my clearly marked satire piece, ripped my quotes, and used them as their own in an article about the same thing, making it a real story. It certainly was not the intention, but it made for a good laugh.

Protecting sources has another side to it. Journalists need to have sources. They need to have legitimate research. Real journalism truly requires it. The topic before us is very important and I am certainly enjoying listening to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is limited, but I want to comment on this bill emanating from the hard-working member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. We appreciate his efforts in getting this bill into this place from the other place.

This bill brings up a number of questions of law. I spent many years practising as a lawyer. The bill engages the charter under subsection 2(b) and under section 8, of course. Subsection 2(b) protects freedom of the press. Section 8 protects all Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure. It also engages the common law on a number of occasions.

There is something called privilege under the Canada Evidence Act and under common law in Canada. There is a specific privilege, journalistic source privilege, that is engaged from time to time. It is meant to protect journalists and to protect their sources, because without unfettered access to these sources, journalists could not do their jobs. Subsection 2(b) of the charter would therefore be undermined, freedom of the press would be prejudiced, and our democracy would suffer.

I think everyone in this House agrees that a robust and free press is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. We would be hard pressed to find any member who does not agree with that. That is why this bill is an important one, which the House should give due consideration to, considering all the consequences. It puts it in the proper legal framework as well as in the sense of a social framework.

We have heard many members speak eloquently about how journalism has changed, how media has changed, and how people are getting their news from other sources. I do not disagree with that at all. That is quite apparent.

Something that has not changed, something that is almost immutable, is that journalists, especially investigative journalists, need to have the proper tools to do their jobs. Whether their stories are written in the print media, spoken on the radio or on television, or frankly, are on their own blogs on the Internet or on their social media pages, when journalists rely on sources to get their stories, generally speaking those sources ought to be protected.

I mentioned the common law before. This has been known as the Wigmore test. It has been considered by the Supreme Court. There is a significant threshold that needs to be met.

Journalistic source privilege is assessed on a case-by-case basis, but it is not something that should be taken lightly.

When the House considers this private member's bill, it would serve us well if we gave some consideration to how the law exists now. I think our analysis must be this: does the law need to be improved? Frankly, I am not in a position to come to a conclusion just yet. I appreciate the time to consider this bill.

The Wigmore test, as it is known, and it was determined by the Supreme Court in R. v. Gruenke, requires that:

(1) the communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed; (2) this element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties; (3) the relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously...

That is a great old word that means diligently, deliberately, and consciously.

...fostered;

Fourth is that the public interest served by protecting the identity of the source in the particular case must outweigh the public interest in getting at the truth.

I think we have to remember number four. In essence, journalistic privilege is meant to serve the public interest, and we need to keep that in mind when we consider whether to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's term of office will expire in July 2017. So far, it seems the government has not taken any steps to find a replacement.

When Mary Dawson's term expires, the government has three options: it could extend her term with another short-term extension, it could leave the role vacant, or it could hire a new full-term commissioner. At present, each of these three options, in the way the appointment process works, has problems.

The government could extend her term, but that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest and put her in an awkward position. She may well refuse, since she has been on two extensions and has expressed some interest in moving on. She has mentioned that she has not reapplied. Since her continued employment is determined ultimately by the Prime Minister she is investigating for unethical behaviour, it would be a problem to continue to reappoint her.

If the government leaves the role vacant, not only would it be failing to uphold the Conflict of Interest Act, it would clearly demonstrate that its political interests trump all of its petulant claims to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history.

If the government appoints a new commissioner while this case remains open, though, the new commissioner will be put into an immediate predicament since he or she will inherit an open investigation into the Prime Minister for his personal conduct and his unethical use of a private aircraft while on his visit to billionaire island. This would also put the Prime Minister into a conflict of interest since he would be deciding who to appoint to continue and complete an investigation into his own conduct.

An ethics commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister is not a wise way to structure an accountability institution. Likewise, allowing a commissioner whose term is ending to reapply or to receive an extension also places him or her into a conflict since the commissioner effectively serves at the pleasure of whomever he or she is supposed to keep accountable.

In light of these two conflicts, last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he would recuse himself from the appointment process for the new commissioner. Like the vast majority of answers he and his ministers provide, the response was irrelevant, underwhelming, and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. Instead of upholding the integrity of an appointment system by agreeing that he would recuse himself, the Prime Minister instead just veered into a vague and barely related tangent of credit-taking for the Liberals' exercises in identity politics.

This is just another example of the Prime Minister talking down to Canadians through their elected representatives, much like he did yesterday when opposition members asked him over and over again whether he had met with the Ethics Commissioner about the investigation. Every time he stood to deliver the same banal response about being happy to answer her questions. It is actually not relevant whether he is happy to answer her questions.

We want to know whether he has met with the Ethics Commissioner about the investigation, whether he realizes he has created a conflict of interest by appointing her for a temporary term, whether he understands the next commissioner will be in a conflict, potentially, due to the same investigation, and whether he has the personal integrity to recuse himself completely from the appointment process.

Canadians, parliamentarians, and the current commissioner deserve to know whether her replacement can finish the investigation in good conscience and without conflict.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I understand and can appreciate that the member opposite does have some concerns about the appointment process. I would like to assure him that he does not need to be concerned. Let me make a very clear statement. Then I hope the member opposite will understand and appreciate why I say that.

It is important to recognize that we have seen a much higher sense of accountability and transparency on many different fronts, including appointments, with the current Prime Minister. I would compare the appointment processes of the former prime minister, Stephen Harper—and for that matter, many other prime ministers, but in particular Stephen Harper—to that of the current Prime Minister and what this government has been doing with respect to appointments. We have put in place a new appointment process, which supports an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process. Our aim is to identify high-quality candidates who will help to achieve gender parity and truly reflect Canada's diversity. This is something that this government has been progressively and aggressively pursuing since it has taken office.

If we look at the kind of results we have seen under our new process, we see that we have made 122 appointments, of which over 60% are women, 13% are visible minorities, and 10% are indigenous. Canadians can continue to apply for positions on commission boards, crown corporations, agencies, and tribunals across the country as the selection process for more positions continues to be launched.

I genuinely believe that what we have seen through this new process is something that Canadians, as a whole, would support. The Conservatives can stand up day after day if they so choose, if they feel that is the direction Canadians want them to take in dealing with this issue. It is up to them, as the official opposition. However, I suspect that if we and the members across the way shared with Canadians some of the results that I have just shared with the House, a vast majority of them would recognize that what we are doing is far better than what we have seen in the years leading up to the member for Papineau becoming Canada's Prime Minister, and that we have a government that understands that we need to get those qualified individuals.

There are some other considerations, and we are not talking about political partisan considerations. One example is with respect to the appointment of senators. We have more senators who are genuinely and truly independent, which is becoming much more recognized throughout the country as this Prime Minister is starting to change the way appointments are taking place.

We see it as a positive, and we would ask the Conservative Party to get on side and support this process.

Mr. Speaker, I think it will come as no surprise to those who listened to that response that I found it somewhat less than assuring. The member just talked about non-partisan appointment processes right after the Liberals appointed a Liberal loyalist and former cabinet minister to be the Commissioner of Official Languages. He said that they have this wonderful new appointment process that is under way, even as people charged with murder are being released from prison for lack of judges to hear their cases. He is telling us that we should be reassured by their appointment process because of all of this wonderful, flowery verbiage to describe their process.

The Prime Minister is under investigation for his own personal ethics, yet he still retains the power to appoint the commissioner who will investigate him. It is absolutely ridiculous. The Ethics Commissioner's appointment is ending; the Commissioner of Lobbying, who is investigating Liberal fundraising, needs to be reappointed; and the Liberals are clipping the power of the parliamentary budget office. It is absurd.